Group Seeks Gay-marriage Case Role

Consider The Children, Family Institute Says

February 10, 2006|By LYNNE TUOHY; Courant Staff Writer

The Family Institute of Connecticut, staunch opponent of same-sex marriage, argued before the state Supreme Court Thursday that it should be allowed to intervene in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Connecticut state laws that recognize only ``traditional marriage'' between a man and a woman.

Although the office of Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is defending the validity of the state laws, FIC attorney Vincent J. McCarthy argued that Blumenthal will focus on the legal, and not necessarily the social and ``foundational,'' issues underlying the controversy.

``One of the most important issues in this case is children, and children have been left out of all the litigation to date,'' McCarthy argued. He said his organization was prepared to present expert testimony and studies showing that the children of families that have no mother figure or father figure -- as in homosexual and lesbian relationships respectively -- ``are disadvantaged at every level of growth and maturation.''

Chief Justice William J. Sullivan seemed to embrace McCarthy's position at one point during an exchange with attorney Kenneth Bartschi, who argued for the state. Sullivan asked Bartschi why evidence of possible harm to children of same-sex couples wouldn't be relevant to the case.

``Six years ago the legislature adopted the co-parent adoption bill, expressly permitting same-sex couples to adopt children together,'' Bartschi said. ``The legislature has already determined it is the quality of the family, and not its configuration, that serves the best interests of the child.''

Bartschi also said the FIC has been permitted by the trial court to file a friend-of-the-court brief, in which it can outline its concerns and reports.

The underlying case -- Kerrigan vs. the Commissioner of Public Health, et al. -- was filed in August 2004, after eight same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses by the Madison town clerk. The couples claim that state laws reserving marriage licenses solely for heterosexual couples violate their constitutional equal protection and due process rights and the right to associate freely with whoever they choose. The lawsuit marked a new tack by advocates of gay marriage, who have focused their energies largely on getting the legislature to adopt a law permitting civil unions.

The state has filed a motion asking Superior Court Judge Patty Jenkins Pittman essentially to dismiss the lawsuit. That motion will be argued next month.

Bartschi and Assistant Attorney General Gregory D'Auria argued that the FIC's strongly held opinions are not enough for the organization to secure status as an intervenor in the lawsuit. If granted intervenor status, lawyers for the FIC could put on evidence, cross-examine witnesses and make legal arguments, as opposed to merely stating their position in a friend-of-the-court brief.

``FIC's interest here is in preserving the family,'' McCarthy argued. ``What we're saying is that traditional marriage is the most ideal structure in which to raise children.''

Although they indicated no time frame, the justices are expected to rule soon on whether the FIC will be permitted to intervene.